It's fine if people choose it.

It's not fine if that choice denies other people the choice not to.

And there seems to be a lot of the latter.

For example, when shopping facilities or hospitals are built so as to be, de-facto, only accessible by automobile, that locks people out of the choice to say no thanks.

▲

iamnothere 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is a regional problem. Legislation to require pedestrian accessibility would fix it.

Where I live every new development must build out sidewalks as a condition of permitting.

▲

1234letshaveatw 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't follow, are people then not able to choose to live somewhere that has shopping facilities or hospitals that are built so as not to be only accessible by automobile?

▲

mynameisbilly 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We shouldn't have to completely upend our lives to move to the small handful of major cities that provide the infrastructure to exist comfortably without a car. At least in the US, your options are limited to NYC, Chicago, Boston, and maybe a few others (Seattle/SF). And even then, the hard set default in these major cities is car ownership EXCEPT for NYC.

▲

iamnothere 5 hours ago | parent [-]

How is Bumfuck MT, population 250, going to support the infrastructure to live comfortably without a car?

▲

omegabravo 5 hours ago | parent [-]

as someone who lives there, they're not. Nor is that what is being suggested, it's critiquing car-centric cities where not having a car is needlessly difficult. Population 250 isn't going to ban cars, but the city may discourage driving and provide ample facilities for those who don't have a car.

	▲	iamnothere 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well I do agree that city living should not require a car, although cars should be an option for those who need them. I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect rural areas to discourage car use. Not everyone in rural communities has a car, but for many they are essential.

▲

sofixa 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> re people then not able to choose to live somewhere

No, because no such somewhere has been built in the country in question (US) in the past ~60 years, because the default is car-centric. So you're left with a few uber dense, old, predating automobiles, places. Which are extremely expensive, because they simply do not have the capacity for everyone who wants to live in them.

	▲	ghaff 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are plenty of city centers that aren't super-expensive but probably don't have a lot of great local employment options and maybe aren't generally considered desirable--and don't have a lot of great transportation options to outlying areas though that's generally true of a lot of major Tier 1 cities as well. You prioritize your choices.